BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended

Hasn't been posted yet but this is a crazy out-of-control story.

The Sun reported that an unnamed BBC presenter has been paying for 'intimate' photos of a child then aged 17 and now aged 20. This child, subsequently an adult, had used this money to fund a drug habit:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tv/22978239...xual-pictures/

The BBC was initially told of this back in May but only suspended the presenter when The Sun went to them with the allegations. The BBC claimed that was the first time they had seen some of the evidence. According to them the initial allegations were not criminal suggesting the accusation of pictures or apparent timeline was not presented to them.

Several poor BBC personalities then had to deny it was them as Twitter decided to go a witch-hunt and name several innocent presenters as the personality. Some of these Twitter users might now be sued.

Then last night a lawyer for the person at the heart of the allegations said it was all nonsense: https://news.sky.com/story/claims-in...eport-12918501

The mother of the young person at the centre of the BBC presenter scandal has reportedly insisted she stands by her claims after a lawyer branded the allegations "rubbish".

In a letter to the BBC, the lawyer representing the young person cast doubt on The Sun's story about the male star, who has not been publicly identified but is reportedly a "household name".

The letter said "nothing inappropriate or unlawful" took place between the young person, now aged 20, and the presenter, according to the BBC.

Which must have made The Sun nervous as well.

But now the Met Police have told the BBC to stop the investigation whilst they investigate.

What a mess!

I am guessing there are nerves at the top of the BBC and The Sun right now.

[Pierre]

I won't name names, but there seems to be a consensus now on Social Media on who it is.

[jfman]

There’s certainly been enough thrown out there, including salary details by a Conservative peer on television, that it’s a small subset of people employed at the corporation.

Incredibly messy, although difficult to see how the police can pursue evidence of a crime where the alleged victim - an adult in their own right now - will not co-operate but are instead reliant upon third parties (the mother and stepfather).

Equally difficult for the BBC to protect their employees from potentially spurious allegations while the person genuinely accused is entitled to due process. If someone sufficiently high profile was to suddenly disappear after an unsubstantiated claim it’d open the door to all kinds of allegations from bad faith actors.

If I were an even bigger cynic than I already am I’d be looking for the story the Sun is trying to bury with the timing.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

Incredibly messy, although difficult to see how the police can pursue evidence of a crime where the alleged victim - an adult in their own right now - will not co-operate but are instead reliant upon third parties (the mother and stepfather).

I believe the crime is in the transfer of photographs.

The person being 17 at the time.

If it can be proven the BBC presenter requested and received the photographs from a minor, then he has broken the law.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I believe the crime is in the transfer of photographs.

The person being 17 at the time.

If it can be proven the BBC presenter requested and received the photographs from a minor, then he has broken the law.

Has the law changed since The Sun used to have 16 year old girls on page 3? Or didn't the law apply to that?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

Has the law changed since The Sun used to have 16 year old girls on page 3? Or didn't the law apply to that?

the minimum age was raised to 18 in 2003 after the implementation of the Sexual Offences Act.

Sam Fox was indeed just 16 when she was first on Page 3.

https://www.entertainmentdaily.co.uk...oungest-model/

Yes the law did change, that's why they stopped.

Pierre is right. If the person was 17 then a crime has been committed and the presenter's career is over and the BBC will face a lot of questions on what they knew when.

If they were 18 then the pictures were sent then The Sun might be in some legal trouble.

I think it all hinges on that.

Originally Posted by Pierre

I won't name names, but there seems to be a consensus now on Social Media on who it is.

I dont participate in [anti] Social Media, so I have no idea.

Several poor BBC personalities then had to deny it was them as Twitter decided to go a witch-hunt and name several innocent presenters as the personality. Some of these Twitter users might now be sued.

Exactly why I dispise twatter (and any replacements or equivelents) - yet another mindless witch hunt. I hope all of them get sued to hell.

---------- Post added at 14:17 ---------- Previous post was at 14:16 ----------

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

Has the law changed since The Sun used to have 16 year old girls on page 3? Or didn't the law apply to that?

The law changed, they can have as much sex as they want, just not take pictures ...

[Halcyon]

Doesn't suprise me that the BBC were trying to cover this up and not let it out.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I believe the crime is in the transfer of photographs.

The person being 17 at the time.

If it can be proven the BBC presenter requested and received the photographs from a minor, then he has broken the law.

100% if this can be proven he’d be bang to rights.

I’m just sceptical of the police reaching the threshold to pursue seizing equipment for digital/banking forensics if the alleged victim is uncooperative. Plus having to prove that the accused knew, or had reasonable grounds to believe, the victim was 17.

Hypothetically a 17 year old with a drug habit pretends to be 18. Makes some cash out a dirty old man. Nobody goes down for that.

[Pierre]

As sure as a French Air Traffic Controller strike in the first week of the summer holidays...

Now more are coming out, another young person that met him on a dating app, is now accusing him of being threatening. whatever that means.

[Ms NTL]

He denies everything. His spokesperson said he is innocent.

No quotes or links are provided.

He is certainly screwed now

[Pierre]

let the pile on .......commence.

A second alleged victim is now involved, and this time BBC News itself seems to be sitting on some pretty damning evidence, in the form of abusive social media messages from the presenter to said second alleged victim.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66165766